Allowed

Roshan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023CRLA/7479/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed challenging the rejection of a bail application under the SC/ST Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier order rejecting bail, citing the appellant's period of incarceration and parity with a co-accused as key factors.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specified conditions regarding trial cooperation and non-interference.

Roshan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7479 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Roshan Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Priyanka Srivastava,Abhishek Srivastava,Jagadish Prasad Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶6

A supplementary affidavit and a copy of the bail order dated 23.12.2022 relating to co-accused Dablu Yadav alias Anil passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3284 of 2022 by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court have been filed today in Court. These are taken on record.

¶7

List revised. Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State are present. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2, though notice has been served upon him personally.

¶8

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Azamgarh, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appellants' Bail Application No. 1618 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bilariyaganj, District Azamgarh.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record.

¶10

According to the prosecution case, the first information report has

¶11

been lodged by the father of the injured, Ramprit Paswan on 11.04.2022 against the appellant, co-accused Dablu Yadav and one unknown accused person, to the effect that on 10.04.2022 at about 7 p.m. the appellant along with co-accused persons came to the informant's house and took along with them his son, Mithun Paswan to market and thereafter behind the Primary Pathshala, Turk Padri, where they hurled derogatory abuses regarding the caste of the victim and beat him badly and fled away from the spot. The informant carried his son first to P.H.C. concerned and thereafter on the advise of E.M.O. posted there to the District Hospital, Azamgarh.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village partisan politics. It is submitted that in the first information report there is no mention of weapon of assault. No specific role of assault has been attributed to the appellant. A general role of beating the injured has been assigned to all the accused persons. It is also submitted that similarly circumstanced co-accused Dablu Yadav alias Anil has been enlarged on bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3284 of 2022. It is submitted that the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is fairly submitted that apart from the present case, three more criminal cases have also been registered against the appellant, which have been explained in paragraph no. 10 of the supplementary affidavit dated 17.08.2022. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 02.05.2022 and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail

¶14

of the appellant, but could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶15

Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, statements of injured and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the injury report and CT Scan report of the injured, the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed . The impugned order dated 11.05.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the appellant Roshan Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶19

(ii) That the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶21

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶22

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶23

It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶24

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Brijesh Maurya

¶25

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Roshan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samiullah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shani Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Niharika Chaubey @ Neha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lakkho Alias Lakhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mrs. Farhana Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P and Another